Is IP Still a Safe Bet?

Dr. Feigel: Patents are still filed, but defending them is getting harder, especially in Asia, where infringement was long common and is now becoming an aggressive patent strategy of its own. Chinese companies no longer just protect their own work; they challenge everyone else's. The volume of rights being generated there is enormous, and that competition will hit Europe hard. For a startup, none of that changes the basic fact. A patent is often the only thing standing between them and a larger competitor.

Dr. Leiber: IP protection is critical for small companies even when they cannot afford to defend it. But owning patents is not the point. Many large European companies sit on patents they never use, which is a waste. Elon Musk said intellectual property is for losers. What he meant is that locking it away, or buying it only to sue people, creates nothing. File the patent, then move fast and turn it into a product. Sometimes giving it away accelerates adoption. Any licensing should be non-exclusive, because speed of adoption matters more than control.

Dr. Feigel: There is no single answer, but alignment would help. An international patent standard ensures that rights are recognized across borders. A stronger TRIPS agreement. Blockchain to document inventions transparently. A global system that lets an inventor see conflicts early. And fewer bureaucratic hurdles, so enforcement is faster. None of it is simple, but the direction is harmonization.

Dr. Leiber: The value of a patent still depends on where you stand. In Korea, courts often favor local companies, and the penalties for infringement are low. In the US, the system tilted toward Big Tech for a decade. Europe's new Unified Patent Court is an encouraging signal, more innovator-friendly, and it is becoming the preferred place to enforce. My own view is blunt. Instead of import tariffs, put high penalties on deliberate patent infringement, especially when technology is copied across regions. And the revenue from that should flow straight back into innovation, where it came from.

Dr. Feigel: They do not make protection obsolete, but the law has to catch up. AI can generate content, yet it is hard to say who the inventor is. It can also track existing rights, so claims will need to be more robust. Blockchain can document IP transparently through smart contracts and make sure inventors are paid. I see more opportunity than threat. The legal framework simply has to evolve to keep pace.

Dr. Leiber: AI is an efficiency tool. It frees you to focus on the creative thinking that matters. Ask a model a question, and the answer is not itself inventive, but it can structure your thoughts and hand you the technical pieces fast. The claims still have to be written by humans, because the creative act is human. The numbers tell the story. In the US, Germany, Korea and China, AI-assisted patents are granted at eighty to ninety percent. At the European Patent Office that recently dropped to around twenty. Blockchain is the more exciting frontier. It could turn IP into a tradable asset class, cut the litigation that only ever enriches lawyers and trolls, and let innovators get back to building.

Dr. Feigel: Needing capital. Startups take the risks and push the boundaries, but they cannot compete on equal terms without funding, especially at the later stages, where Europe still lags the US. Governments should support smaller firms far more deliberately than they do. Their contribution matters more now, not less.

Dr. Leiber: And needing trust. Negotiating with many parties who each hold rights is slow, and litigation erodes the trust between startups and large companies before anything gets built. That is the real cost. Fix the funding and fix the trust, and the smaller player stops being prey and starts being a partner.